Applied Acoustics 134 (2018) 1–7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Acoustics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apacoust

Characteristics and prediction of sound level in extra-large spaces T

a a b b,c,⁎
Chao Wang , Hui Ma , Yue Wu , Jian Kang
a
School of Architecture, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072 China
b
School of Architecture, Harbin Institute of Technology, Harbin 150001 China
c
School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN UK

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper aims to examine sound fields in extra-large spaces, which are defined in this paper as spaces used by
Extra-large space people, with a volume approximately larger than 125,000 m3 and absorption coefficient less than 0.7. In such
Sound field spaces inhomogeneous reverberant energy caused by uneven early reflections with increasing volume has a
Sound pressure level significant effect on sound fields. Measurements were conducted in four spaces to examine the attenuation of the
Prediction
total and reverberant energy with increasing source-receiver distance, which was then validated by the simu-
lations with image-source method. Results show that the reasons for the total energy’s exponential decrease are
not only the direct sound, but also the reverberant energy. The prediction difference of total sound pressure level
(SPL) between classical formula and the image-source method increases with the volume and decreases with the
surface absorption, based on which a critical line separating extra-large spaces from large ones is proposed.
Moreover, a newly modified model based on the importance of first reflection from floor is proposed, showing
more advantages of sound level prediction in extra-large spaces.

1. Introduction Numerous factors have been used to account for inhomogeneous

Many large buildings are being built worldwide to accommodate
more and more complicated functions. In those buildings, the sound
field plays an important role in the design of acoustic performance and
electronic evacuation systems [1]. With the increase of volume, the
spatial distribution difference of reverberant energy, which is very
important for the characteristics and prediction of sound level in a
space, should become more significant but further details about the
phenomenon and theory are also needed.
Evidence of this spatial distribution difference was found in various
cases. After a series of measurements in performance spaces, with vo-
lumes varied from 2900 to 86,650 m3 , reverberant energy decreasing
with the source-receiver distance was proposed by Barron based on the
image-source method in rectangular rooms [2]. And many other in-
vestigations in concert halls were also validated this difference[3,4].
The same phenomenon was also found in four Japanese churches, with
volumes varied from 1000 to 12,600 m3 [5] and twelve Mudejar-Gothic
churches in the south of Spain, with volumes varied from 3947 to
10,708 m3 [6]. In St Pauls Cathedral in London, with a volume of
152,000 m3 , variations in sound pressure level (SPL) with distance and
the contours of equal SPL for 1000 Hz octave band also suggest some
interesting spatial variations although further analysis has not been
conducted [7].
spatial distribution of the reverberant energy. At each reflection of
sound wave, different acoustic characteristics of surfaces, such as ab-
sorption and scattering [8,9], affect sound field to varying degrees.
Room shapes, which can be categorised by the ratio of three dimensions
[10], such as flat space [11,12] and long space [13–15], also has a
significant influence on the sound field. In some spaces with small
subspaces, coupled-space effect was also considered [16]. Other factors
which also need to be considered include air absorption and specular
early reflections [16–18].
While large in acoustics mainly means that low-frequency resonance
could be paid less attention for the sound field in a room [19], with the
continuously increasing volume, early reflections in extra-large space
show more significance as a factor and its influence on the sound field
has not been studied systematically. The aim of this current paper is
therefore to explore the sound energy distribution and its prediction
method in extra-large spaces. Measurements in four cases and computer
simulation have been used to explore the characteristics of reverberant
energy in extra-large spaces and a new modified model has also been
proposed.

⁎
Corresponding author at: School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN UK.
E-mail addresses: j.kang@sheffield.ac.uk, j.kang@hit.edu.cn (J. Kang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2017.12.023
Received 24 June 2017; Received in revised form 10 December 2017; Accepted 20 December 2017
0003-682X/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
C. Wang et al. Applied Acoustics 134 (2018) 1–7

point of the floor at a height of 1.5 m . The receiver height was 1.2 m .
Each point was measured three times to obtain the average value. ISO-
3382 standard was followed in the equipment selection and measure-
ment process. For the sake of brevity, only the average of three octave
bands (500 Hz,1 kHz and 2 kHz) is presented in this paper. The SPL at all
points were more than 15 dB above the background noise in the four
cases.

2.2. Computer simulation

Because of the difference in typology, shape, volume, acoustic sur-

Fig. 1. Plans of the four measured spaces with the same scale: (a) Dangxiao auditorium,
(b) HIT indoor stadium, (c) TJU indoor stadium, and (d) Guian Circus Show. The source
points are labelled S1, receiver positions are shown as black dots.
face performance, etc., it is difficult to obtain an accurate rule of energy
distribution from measurements in different spaces. To control other
variables and explore the influence of volume as single factor on sound
field, sound energy variation in large spaces have been studied by using
computer simulation in a series of hypothetical cubic spaces at different
volumes and surface absorptions. An image-source method [20] for
cubic spaces has been developed because of its easy-implement algo-
rithm and accuracy of reflection sequence [11,21]. A great advantage of
the image-source model in the current paper is that the calculation
accuracy and computational difficulty have no relation to the volume.
The above method has been achieved by using python language to
avoid modification algorithms for optimization in some commercial
software packages developed for ordinary spaces. By using multi-pro-
cessing method and customizable pre-processing, the new program
shows more flexibility and total efficiency than commercial software
packages. In addition, low-frequency resonance, diffraction and edge
effect which are less of a concern in extra-large spaces, are not con-
sidered. The diffusion effect is also ignored for the sake of convenience.
A total of 20 cubic models were selected, with side length varied
from 10 to 500 m (namely, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 125,
150, 175, 200, 250, 300, 350, 400, 450 and 500, so the volume varies
from 1000 to 125,000,000 m3 , which represents the different volume of
ordinary and large spaces) and 9 uniform absorption coefficients, from
0.1 to 0.9, were applied to all the surfaces in each space. The source
points were arranged at the central point of the floor at a height of
1.5 m . Receiver height was 1.2 m . Fifteen points were arranged evenly in
the quarter of floor in the smallest space because of the symmetry. And
in the next larger space, 15 more points were arranged as the previous
one. Receiver points in the previous space were also included in the
next larger space for comparison.

2. Method 3. Characteristics of sound field

2.1. On-site measurements
On-site measurements were carried out in four cases, with volumes
varied from 7000 to 190,000 m3, representing ordinary to large space
respectively, as shown in Fig. 1 and Table 1. The shape and acoustic
performance of surfaces in four cases are different but all of them are
centralized. Other information is shown in Fig. 2, and the RT in this
Table 1 is the average reverberation time of three octave bands
(500 Hz,1 kHz and 2 kHz).
The SPL values were measured using an omni-directional source
with a pink noise signal and calibrated sound level meters. The source
points were arranged at the usual performance point or near the central
Basic characteristics of sound energy distribution were explored in
the measurements of four cases, as shown in Fig. 3. A near-exponential
trend both appears in the distribution of total and reverberant energy in
all four cases and this phenomenon is more obvious near the source. In
the area far from the source, the attenuation gradually becomes linear.
For each case, a polynomial regression is performed of the total sound
level data as a function of source-receiver distance. The R2 of regression
in four cases varies from 0.87 to 0.92, which indicates that spatial
difference between the points at the same source-receiver distance ex-
ists in a small range.
In order to further determine the spatial distribution of the re-
verberation energy in the space of larger volume and greater absorption

Table 1
Geometry and information of four cases.

Case Name Volume (m3 ) Seats RT (s) Receiver points Background noise (dBA) Temperature (°C ) Humidity (%)

1 Dangxiao auditorium 7200 688 1.1 21 31 30 59

2 HIT indoor stadium 11,400 3000 3.9 22 20 20 50
3 TJU indoor stadium 59,000 4000 2.2 17 25 19 28
4 Guian Circus Show 190,000 \ 3.0 10 30 23 70

2
C. Wang et al.
coefficient, a series of cubes were simulated by an image-source
method, the results of which are presented in Fig. 4. In the cubic space
with a volume of 1000 m3 , the reverberant energy attenuates slightly
with the increase of source-receiver distance. The difference range of
reverberant energy in the space is 1.1 dB and 2.5 dB while the absorp-
tion coefficient is 0.3 and 0.7, respectively. This phenomenon is
common in ordinary large spaces, such as auditoriums and small indoor
stadiums. However, with the increase in volume and absorption coef-
ficient, reverberant SPL shows a significant exponential decreasing
trend. From Fig. 4, it is obvious that the curves become closer to the
straight direct-energy line, since logarithmic abscissa axis is used.
For large cubic spaces with side lengths of 100 m or more, the SPL
profiles in Fig. 4 can be divided into three sections. The first part is the
linear attenuate curve near the source and in different spaces those
curves are always within about 6 m from the source. Then the second
part shows an exponential trend in the remaining near-source area.
More exponential trends appear with the increase of volume and the
reverberant SPL curves of different spaces in the two figures move down
and gradually approaches the first reflection from floor (FRFF) curve.
The last part backs to the linear attenuate trend again in the area far
from the source. This linear pattern is due to the domination of other
reflections, which still have a slight attenuation with distance because
the energy of FRFF decreases with the source-receiver distance. This
three-part phenomenon in a large space is different from the hypothesis
of classical model or other models [2,22].
In terms of the effect of surface absorption, according to the relative
3
Applied Acoustics 134 (2018) 1–7
Fig. 2. Photograph of three cases: (a) photo of
HIT indoor stadium, (b) photo of TJU indoor
stadium, and (c) photo of Guian Circus Show.
(Only photographs of three larger cases were
presented because Dangxiao auditorium’s type is
so common that general understanding can be
obtained from the plan.)
Fig. 3. SPL distribution in four cases: (a) Dangxiao
auditorium, (b) HIT indoor stadium, (c) TJU indoor
stadium, and (d) Guian Circus Show. The curves of
total SPL are obtained from the regression of mea-
sured points in different directions (represented by
thick solid lines) and the regression coefficient is
shown in each figure. The attenuation curves of the
direct SPL (represented by dashed lines) could be
derived from the source-receiver distance and the
reverberant SPL (represented by dash-dotted lines)
could be deduced from the energy relations in each
case. The error bars represent the standard deviation
of the three measured values of total SPL in the same
receiver point.
relationship between the dash straight line and other curves in Fig. 4,
the direct energy in the space with larger surface absorption occupies a
greater proportion in total energy and shows more exponential trends.
Moreover, the curves in Fig. 4(a) are steeper than those in Fig. 4(b)
which means that the reverberant energy also appears to be a more
exponential trend with the growth of surface absorption. In each figure,
this exponential trend is also more evident with the growth of volume.
In this way, there is a larger distance range with exponential behaviour
for larger room volumes and greater absorption coefficients.
4. Prediction model
The applicability of the classical model is first studied in this sec-
tion. Then a new prediction model is proposed theoretically and vali-
dated with the measurements.
4.1. Applicability of classical model
The classical model [19] assumes that the reverberation sound en-
ergy is evenly distributed in a space, hence, the total SPL is
W 4W
L = 10log10 ⎛ + ⎞ + 120
⎝ 4πr 2 R ⎠ (1)
where W is the sound source power, r is the source-receiver distance,
and R is the room constant.
As the volume becomes larger and the sound absorption coefficient
C. Wang et al.
Fig. 4. Theoretical reverberant SPL in cubic spaces of different volumes but with uniform
absorption coefficients of (a) 0.3 and (b) 0.7. Parameter is side length in m, FRFF = first
reflection from floor. Horizontal dashed lines represent the reverberant SPL according to
classical theory.
increases, the spatial difference of reverberant energy increases corre-
spondingly. Because it is difficult to determine the exact acoustic
parameters in a real room, prediction results of the classical model are
compared with those of computer simulation in the space of different
volume and surface absorption.
The differences between prediction results of the total energy ob-
tained by the classical model and the image-source method generally
increase with the increase of volume and the decrease of surface ab-
sorption coefficient, as shown in Fig. 5. Air absorption here is neglected
Fig. 5. The prediction difference of the total energy (dB) obtained by the classical model
and the image-source method (classical minus image-source method). Only the max ab-
solute value of the difference was recorded in one space.
4
Applied Acoustics 134 (2018) 1–7
to highlight the effects of non-uniform early reflection energy and avoid
differences of various considerations of air absorption. As can be seen in
Fig. 4, the max difference between the reverberant energy derived from
the classical model and the image-source method always appears at the
near-source area. Although the different range becomes larger with the
increase of surface absorption, the reverberant-to-direct energy ratio is
smaller simultaneously, which leads to the result that the total SPL
difference is proportional to the size and inversely proportional to the
surface absorption.
When the volume of a room is less than 8000 m3 (of which the cube
root is equal to 20 m ), the difference between the classical model and
image-source method is generally within 0.5 dB . The difference between
the classical model and the image-source method is less than 1 dB when
the absorption coefficient is less than 0.7 and the volume is less than
125,000 m3 (i.e. a 50 m cube). The difference is stationary below 1 dB
when the absorption coefficient is larger than 0.7. Because this differ-
ence is due to the inhomogeneous spatial distribution of the reverberant
energy, a curve in Fig. 5, say the 1 dB curve, might be used to distin-
guish ordinary large space and extra-large spaces.
4.2. A new prediction model
Different models to predict SPL distribution were proposed based on
different considerations and approximations of reverberant energy. If
the uniform decrease of reverberant energy with the increase of source-
receiver distance was considered, a fixed rate factor was added by
Barron [2] to predict the total SPL
W 4W −13.82r
LB = 10log10 ⎛ + ·e cTE ⎞ + 120
⎝ 4πr 2 R ⎠ (2)
where c is the velocity of sound, and TE is the Eyring reverberation time.
This model has good predictions in many concert halls.
Fig. 6 is helpful in explaining these models: tc is the time at which
the number of reflections is large enough to reach statistical average,
which is also called averaging time [16]. Different statistical assump-
tions were made to predict the reflection energy before tc . For example,
the initial time t0 and the time direct sound reaches tD are used as the
critical time in classical and Barron model respectively.
Several other modified models were also proposed based on dif-
ferent approximations of early reflections [22,23] and the rate of en-
ergy decay [24] but in some cases they did not show better accuracy
[2].
However, the FRFF, which is significantly larger than the other re-
flections in general, has not been used to improve prediction accuracy.
The path difference between the direct sound and the FRFF decrease
with the source-receiver distance, as shown in Fig. 7, which results in a
small difference in the energy in most areas. This is also consistent with
the phenomenon in Fig. 4.
In the current paper a newly modified model for extra-large spaces
is therefore proposed based on the FRFF. The height of the source Hs
LEVEL
0 tD tf tc
TIME
Fig. 6. Different stages of the energy decay.
C. Wang et al. Applied Acoustics 134 (2018) 1–7

statistical methods as in the Barron model which accuracy was con-

2.5 firmed by using the billiard theory [25] and measurements. Therefore,
based on the geometry of sound source and receiver points, as shown in
Path Difference (m)

2.0 Fig. 8, the following three formulas can be obtained.

1.5 ΔH = Hs−Hr (3)

1.0 where ΔH is the height difference between the source and receiver
points.
0.5
r 2 = (ΔH )2 + Lh2 (4)
0
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 where Lh is the horizontal distance between the source and receiver
Source-receiver Distance (m) points.
Fig. 7. Path difference between the direct sound and the first reflected sound from the
L2 = (2Hs−ΔH )2 + Lh2 (5)
floor.
where L is the path length of FRFF.
Source Receiver According to Eqs. (3)–(5), the path length of FRFF can be obtained
by
r
ΔH

L= 4Hs Hr + r 2 (6)
Hs

Hr

As the FRFF is considered, the total energy can be divided into three
parts, which are the energy of direct sound, the FRFF and other sub-
L sequent reverberant sounds. So the total SPL can be obtained by
Hs

W W (1−αf ) 4W −13.82L ⎞
L′ = 10log10 ⎛⎜ + + ·e cT ⎟ + 120
Lh ⎝ 4πr 2 4πL2 R ⎠ (7)

Image source where αf is the absorption coefficient of the floor; T is the reverberation
time measured or calculated. Adding Eqs. (6) and (7), L′ will be gen-
Fig. 8. The geometry of sound source and receiver points based on the image method. erated as:

W (1−αf ) 4W −13.82 4Hs Hr + r 2

and receiver Hr is 1.5 m and 1.2 m respectively, except where indicated. ⎛ W ⎞
L′ = 10log10 ⎜ 2
+ 2
+ ·e cT
⎟ + 120
As both the source and receiver are closer to the floor than to the other ⎝
4πr 4π (4Hs Hr + r ) R
⎠
surfaces in general, the reflection energy from the floor almost always (8)
reaches first in large spaces, which could be calculated as an individual
term in a newly modified model. The time when the FRFF reaches t f is Theoretically, this model could not be used in the situation where
considered a critical time for the statistical assumption in the new the sound source, or the floor on which the first-order sound reflects,
model. The reflection after t f is still estimated by using the same cannot be seen at the receiver point. The applicability in the situation
where the source or receiver are far from the floor is also uncertain.

Fig. 9. Total SPL attenuation with the increase of

source-receiver distance in measurement and predic-
tion in four cases: (a) Dangxiao auditorium, (b) HIT
indoor stadium, (c) TJU indoor stadium, and (d)
Guian Circus Show.

5
C. Wang et al. Applied Acoustics 134 (2018) 1–7

Table 2
Differences of measured and predicted values by three models in four cases.

Cases Classical Barron Revised

Min Max SD Min Max SD Min Max SD

Dangxiao auditorium −1.7 3.49 1.46 −2.09 0.58 0.72 −0.94 1.55 0.66
HIT indoor stadium −2.02 2.52 1.36 −2.36 0.98 0.9 −1.2 1.32 0.73
TJU indoor stadium −3.38 2.72 1.95 −3.5 0.5 1 −1.38 1.33 0.66
Guian Circus Show −2.4 0.52 1.03 −2.71 −0.34 0.77 −0.7 1.49 0.71

Fig. 10. Difference in the results of models and computer simulation (models minus computer simulation). The dotted lines represent the Barron model, and the solid lines represent the
classical model. The dashed and grey solid lines represented the modified model using Sabine and Eyring reverberation time respectively. (a), (b), and (c) were in the space with volumes
1000 m3,125,000 m3 and 125,000,000 m3 respectively when the surface coefficient was 0.1. (d), (e), and (f) were in the space with volumes 1000 m3,125,000 m3 and 125,000,000 m3 re-
spectively when the surface coefficient was 0.5.

4.3. Validation of the new model
The modified model is applied to the four measured cases to obtain
further validation, and the classical and Barron models are also used for
comparison, as shown in Fig. 9. In the four cases, the absorption coef-
ficient is calculated by the Eyring formula based on the reverberation
time measured, and the sound power level of the source is deduced
from the SPL measured at 1 m from the source, since the direct energy
here is about 9.5 dB larger than the first reflect energy from the floor
using the spherical formula.
As can be seen in Fig. 9, the results show that the classical model
underestimated the energy in the near field, within about 10–20 m , and
overestimated it in the far field. By adding a distance-dependent at-
tenuation factor to reverberation energy, Barrons model yields very
accurate predictions in the far field but still underestimated the energy
in the near field. However, as the volume becomes larger and the first
reflection energy from the floor has more advantages than other re-
flections, the accuracy is better using the modified model. The differ-
ences between the measurements and the modified model are sig-
nificantly reduced. The maximum difference in the four cases is
between 1.38 and 1.55 dB and the standard deviation is 0.66–0.71 dB , as
shown in Table 2.
Further information is obtained from the simulation. The difference
among the three models (classical, Barron, and the modified) and
computer simulation shows different trends with the increase of the
source-receiver distance, as shown in Fig. 10. When the volume is
1000 m3 , all the three models have little differences, which are not
larger than 1 dB. When the volume is 125,000 m3 and 125,000,000 m3 ,
both curves of the classical and Barron models show a deep trough at
about 4–20 m , which means a different degree of underestimation in the
near-source area. This trough is mainly due to the FRFF and its re-
lationship with other energy as in Fig. 4, it is proportional to the volume
and inversely proportional to the absorption coefficient. When the
surface coefficient is 0.1 and the volume is 125,000,000 m3 , the max
difference between two existing models and computer simulation is
2.7 dB.
In Fig. 10, as the volume increases, the prediction difference of all
the four models becomes greater generally and the difference curves
show more spatial fluctuation with increasing source-receiver distance.
This may suggest more theoretical limitations of statistical models in
the extra-large spaces as the sound rays become more difficult to reach
the statistical average with the increasing volume. Different from the
two existing models, the prediction difference of the two modified
models decreases with the increasing source-receiver distance. This is
mainly due to the fact that the starting point of the calculation for the
reverberant energy in the modified models is the latest among those
models which results in less reverberant energy at the far-source point.
With regard to the use of Sabine or Eyring reverberation time, it is
difficult to have the exact evidence to determine by computer simula-
tion or measurements because most of the difference between the two

6
C. Wang et al.
0.9
0.8 -0.7
Coefficient of absorption
0.7 -0.9
-1
0.6
-1.1
0.5
0.4
0.3 -0.9
0.2 -0.7
0.1
100 200 300 400 500
3
— V (m)
Fig. 11. The prediction difference of the modified model and the image-source method
(modified minus image-source method).
formulas are within 1 dB as shown in Fig. 10, which still requires further
study.
More details of the difference between the modified model and the
image-source method are shown in Fig. 11. The modified model shows
a better applicability in prediction and the accuracy of this new model
is insensitive to volume, which shows more applicability in extra-large
spaces. The max difference of total SPL appears when the surface ab-
sorption is 0.5.
5. Conclusion
For SPL-prediction purposes, if 1 dB is accepted as the criterion, the
space with the absorption coefficient is less than 0.7 and the volume is
large than 125,000 m3 is suggested to be called extra-large space based
on the results of computer simulation in the current paper.
When a space volume becomes larger, the diffuse field assumption is
more and more inapplicable not only for the total energy but also for
the reverberant energy. The three-stage phenomenon was found in the
attenuation of reverberant energy by using the image-source method
and was validated in the following investigation. The first part is the
linear attenuate curve near the source and then the second part shows
an exponential trend in the remaining near-source area. The last part
reverts to the linear attenuate trend again in the area far from the
source. The importance of the first reflection from the floor in an extra-
space is found to be the main reason of the three-stage attenuation.
A new model to predict the SPL attenuation in extra-large spaces is
proposed based on the importance of the first reflection from the floor.
In this model the energy of the first reflection from the floor can be
calculated separately rather than being included in the approximate
formula of the reverberant energy, and its accuracy and applicability
were validated by two methods. In computer simulation, the advantage
of the new model in the near-source area is indicated, and in four
measured cases, the max difference is from 1.38 dB to 1.55 dB and the
standard deviation of which is from 0.66 dB to 0.71 dB . This model could
Applied Acoustics 134 (2018) 1–7
not be used in the situation where the sound source, or the floor on
-0.1 which the first-order sound reflects, cannot be seen at the receiver
point. The applicability in the situation where the source or receiver is
-0.3 far from the floor is also uncertain.
Acknowledgements
-0.5
We acknowledge Python Software Foundation and Continuum
-0.7
Analytics for their open-source software python and anaconda.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science
-0.9 Foundation of China [grant numbers 51378139 and 51178300].
-1.1 References
[1] Fujikawa T, Aoki S. An escape guiding system utilizing the precedence effect for
evacuation signal. Proceedings of meetings on acoustics, vol. 19. Acoustical Society
of America; 2013. p. 030055.
[2] Barron M. Theory and measurement of early, late and total sound levels in rooms. J
Acoust Soc Am 2015;137(6):3087–98.
[3] Aretz M, Orlowski R. Sound strength and reverberation time in small concert halls.
Appl Acoust 2009;70(8):1099–110.
[4] Jeon JY, Kim YH. Design of sound diffusion in concert halls using scale models. J
Acoust Soc Am 2010;127(3):1752.
[5] Soeta Y, Ito K, Shimokura R, Sato S-I, Ohsawa T, Ando Y. Effects of sound source
location and direction on acoustic parameters in Japanese churches. J Acoust Soc
Am 2012;131(2):1206–20.
[6] Zamarreño T, Girón S, Galindo M. Acoustic energy relations in mudejar-gothic
churches. J Acoust Soc Am 2007;121(1):234–50.
[7] Lewers T, Anderson J. Some acoustical properties of St Paul’s Cathedral, London. J
Sound Vib 1984;92(2):285–97.
[8] Joyce W. Exact effect of surface roughness on the reverberation time of a uniformly
absorbing spherical enclosure. J Acoust Soc Am 1978;64(5):1429–36.
[9] Miles R. Sound field in a rectangular enclosure with diffusely reflecting boundaries.
J Sound Vib 1984;92(2):203–26.
[10] Hodgson M. When is diffuse-field theory accurate? Can Acoust 1994;22(3):41–2.
[11] Galaitsis AG, Patterson WN. Prediction of noise distribution in various enclosures
from free-field measurements. J Acoust Soc Am 1976;60(4):848–56.
[12] Kuttruff H. Stationary propagation of sound energy in flat enclosures with partially
diffuse surface reflection. Acta Acust United Acust 2000;86(6):1028–33.
[13] Kang J. Acoustics in long enclosures with multiple sources. J Acoust Soc Am
1996;99(2):985–9.
[14] Picaut J, Simon L, Polack J-D. Sound field in long rooms with diffusely reflecting
boundaries. Appl Acoust 1999;56(4):217–40.
[15] Tang S, Piippo K. Sound fields inside street canyons with inclined flanking building
façades. Proceedings of meetings on acoustics 161ASA, vol. 12. ASA; 2011. p.
040004.
[16] Anderson J, Bratos-Anderson M. Acoustic coupling effects in St Paul’s Cathedral,
London. J Sound Vib 2000;236(2):209–25.
[17] Martellotta F. Identifying acoustical coupling by measurements and prediction-
models for St. Peters Basilica in Rome. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;126(3):1175–86.
[18] Sendra JJ. Computational acoustics in architecture. Wit Press; 1999.
[19] Kuttruff H. Room acoustics. CRC Press; 2009.
[20] Gibbs BM, Jones D. A simple image method for calculating the distribution of sound
pressure levels within an enclosure. Acta Acust United Acust 1972;26(1):24–32.
[21] Lehmann EA, Johansson AM. Prediction of energy decay in room impulse responses
simulated with an image-source model. J Acoust Soc Am 2008;124(1):269–77.
[22] Cirillo E, Martellotta F. Sound propagation and energy relations in churches. J
Acoust Soc Am 2005;118(1):232–48.
[23] Vorländer M. Revised relation between the sound power and the average sound
pressure level in rooms and consequences for acoustic measurements. Acta Acust
United Acust 1995;81(4):332–43.
[24] Berardi U, Cirillo E, Martellotta F. A comparative analysis of acoustic energy models
for churches. J Acoust Soc Am 2009;126(4):1838–49.
[25] Polack J-D. Playing billiards in the concert hall: the mathematical foundations of
geometrical room acoustics. Appl Acoust 1993;38(2):235–44.